Stock/commodities Discussion

Jul 5, 2009
2,780
255
South Dakota
@Bache Tehroon I hear what you are saying one thing my parents started doing is invest in gold coins back in the 80s, when it was
$400 an oz, every year for my birthday today it is $1,771
So That gold that i have is probably estimated at $80-000, 100,000, saved for a rainy day.
As for you and @Pooya I believe rather than spending $300 a month ill wait for $1,000 and either invest in some
VOO and looking at VTI
I learned about E.T.F
An exchange-traded fund (ETF) is a type of security that involves a collection of securities—such as stocks—that often tracks an underlying index, although they can invest in any number of industry sectors or use various strategies. ETFs are in many ways similar to mutual funds; however, they are listed on exchanges and ETF shares trade throughout the day just like ordinary stock.
So question Pooya jan is this VOO Vanguard S&) i know ETF but is it more energy based?
Seems like in Q1 it blew the competition. I will save $1,000 and buy about what 4 shares to start rather than $200-300. I can wait 30 years
I"m 38 so that will put me at 68, retirement time
Meci dude i'm doing my homework
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/voo
Currently sitting at $267.00 a share so if i get little over $1,000 i can start with 4 shares, perhaps TD Ameritrade
i believe it is $7 a share to buy online there, which is NOTHING.
Damn, it's fun :) and outmost farcical when You start writing "out of the context", people have to learn how to catch the fun out of the seriousness, apparently not many fellas have that ability and obviously do not get the "tongue-in-cheek", especially as it is expressed in "out of the context" lettering so many times.

Alright, back to the subject, looking at the thread and reading a lot of good suggestions and even less good advices here, I get reminded of exactly what it is, "it's not easy to trade as a layperson in the joungle of stock market", but very nice if you doing it by learning or (learning by doing it) and do it step by step.

You need to read quite a lot during the day on the financial situation, daily basis and update your understanding of how crazy stock market is, read even the newspapers, magazines or follow the media you don't like.
Its just like planning to greet friends in the summer cottage, the cottage close to the lake.
1 - Potty training your kids before you arrive!
2 - Find out how loudness you and your partner are in your bedroom!

However, here are my rules and checklist;
  • Activating the Fill or Kill "FOK" is my motto (a principle), never get too greedy nor wait too long when it starts running downhill. Up 4%, Down 2%, sell!
  • The floating assets/amount of disponible in your securities account is vital, many times life changing on a bad Monday.
  • I no longer care about long-term equity investments, I have given up that idea, buy and sell during the same day is my motto, set off losses vs gains when filing your annual federal income Tax.
  • Never ever own any shares when the bell of the market goes for the day, absoulutly not over the weekend (friday afternnon is the deadline for me) equipoise and exit!
  • Avoid private deposits and mutual funds as far as possible, mutual funds are crap. Damn dumb brokers. (By the way brokers are outdated, fuk'm)
  • Stay away from offsetting short positions and warrants, not for laypersons.
At the end, usually not a good sign when you talk about the favorite and specific compony and its shares. However, I make the exception here and now;
Enbridge, a vigorous, healhty and low-risk businesses to explore.
-

Ok edited post what about VOO along with VTI or stick with VOO?
Why did you edit this input? I simply dont get it :(
 
Last edited:
Feb 4, 2005
16,633
1,245
is it time to buy ge?
if ge goes under then america as a whole will go under.
it's now testing it's long term lows.

is it time to buy ge?
if ge goes under then america as a whole will go under.
it's now testing it's long term lows.

Just like the time when Enron and Bear Stearns and AIG and Lehman Brothers went under and took the US down with them.
 
Likes: Bache Tehroon
Oct 18, 2002
16,337
195
If you are beginner (I count my self as one)

do not own individual stocks.
I only have three exceptions, Ali Baba, Google, Amazon, Some may choose to include Apple and Microsoft on that list.
that's because i consider those three companies as monopolies.

Consider this.
Let's say you were bullish on Oil.

How the hell do you know which of the Majors (Exxon,Chevron,Conoco,BP,Total,Shell) is better to own?

do you have data regarding on their oil wells, all their land leases, all their Refinareis, petro plants .......
Even if you did you could not make sense out of it.

do you know if they have accounting issues?
do you know if they have safety issues?

the answer is really no. the best you can is decide that oh oil is gone maybe do a little better than banks for next 10 years. or vice versa.

if you own individual stocks, you can always be hit with a GE which sold insurance 20 years ago which suddenly they are responsible for.
BP which spends 50 billion on clean up efforts.
 

TeamMeli

Legionnaire
Feb 5, 2014
7,617
103
Las Vegas, NV
Arash jan BT is right and CM gave good points as well. For beginners i don't recommend individual stocks.
I got the game plan by BT jan I will save up $1,000 and every so often put another $1,000 get 4 shares of VOO - Vangard
and also do trade $7 for four shares. Perfect game plan thank you for simplifying it for me @Bache Tehroon
 
Likes: Bache Tehroon

TeamMeli

Legionnaire
Feb 5, 2014
7,617
103
Las Vegas, NV
Playboy- that is what i call quality posting :)
Ok so here is my plan @Bache Tehroon by next year i should have a good government or city job so $2000,$4000 annually
comes to 8-16 shares of VOO starting at 39 years old. Every ten years that is $20,000 to $40,000 or 80-160 shares(as is, not factoring in
interest, and money gained or lost.
By the time I am 69 retirement age straight investment, no interest factored $60,000-$120,000 240-480 shares.
Thought about this all night. $2,000 even with just veteran disability is doable, with an academic post or govt job $4000.
What do you think
 
I think you should be saving a lot more than $2000-$4000/year. For a half-decent/comfortable North-American life in retirement by age 65 you want to have at least $1.5 million in liquid assets (that's today in 2020 dollars).

Some people consider their house/property a liquid asset. It's not. Unless you sell it and hold its value in liquid form ( stocks/bonds/cash). Gold is not an investment. It's a hedge against currencies and often a terrible one.

Some people inherit a large sum before retirement which helps things immensely.

For a typical person without a large inheritance and a middle-class income, the rate of savings should be about $20,000-$30,000/year over 30 years to establish a balance that one can realistically call a retirement nest-egg.

Most people fail to realize this goal and that's why retirement becomes a source of stress/anxiety. Government programs are completely unpredictable and usually lag inflation. Can't count on them to be around 30 years from now.
 
Oct 18, 2002
16,337
195
Thought about this all night. $2,000 even with just veteran disability is doable, with an academic post or govt job $4000.

BT touched on this.
if you live in the U.S according to current law (will change) you can an estimate what will be your maximum Social security benefits.

It is rare for anybody to able to get the max benefits unless they paid into the system for 36/35 years at max contribution.

the rest of it is up to you. you have to figure out what is the life style you want.

see what the deferential is on a monthly basis.

deduce the annual.

guesstimate how long you are gone live (based on life expectancy and how much more healthy or unhealthy you are relative to rest of the population)

then you need to freshen up your compound interest formula that you learn in calculus 1 and see what saving rate per year and what yield % will get where you need to be.

Should take you no more than 1 hour really to get rough estimate.
 
Likes: TeamMeli

TeamMeli

Legionnaire
Feb 5, 2014
7,617
103
Las Vegas, NV
CM jan merci good tips,. Side note i'm note eligible for SS retirements that is not until 68 after 10 years you ARE
elligable for your VA benefits wow i remember over 10 years ago i was a lost Seamen recruit and left as an LCDR but
that is another story for another day. If I invest $2,000-4000 annually, when i get my coveted job(4000)
that is $20,000-$40,000 a decade, roughly or 80-160 shares(8-16 shares of VOO Vanguard)
by the time i am 68-69 retirement time, I can have about oh $60,000-120,000 or 240-480 shares :)
@Bache Tehroon Thank you i will TRY to start with the first $1000 this year but worst case 39 next year.
 
Last edited:
Market has exploded today with Powell claiming they can print a lot more money. Moderna is also claiming their vaccine is promising.

Unless Trump gets into a massive trade war with China (likely and I would personally support it), this market is poised to skyrocket in the coming years. Those holding cash or gold will be crying by 2025. Trillions of dollars have already entered the market and trillions more will keep entering. If you're not invested in it, you're betting against very powerful forces.
 
Feb 4, 2005
16,633
1,245
Market has exploded today with Powell claiming they can print a lot more money. Moderna is also claiming their vaccine is promising.

Unless Trump gets into a massive trade war with China (likely and I would personally support it), this market is poised to skyrocket in the coming years. Those holding cash or gold will be crying by 2025. Trillions of dollars have already entered the market and trillions more will keep entering. If you're not invested in it, you're betting against very powerful forces.
The market doesn't look promising and is already too expensive. Sure there will be some winning stocks (like the FANGs) but those who sell on these mini rallies will win in the long term. I doubt Moderna's announcement has any merit. Speaking from my own industry: Most banks are up around 10% today even though margins are going towards zero. Loans in forbearance are at all time high and loan servicers are losing money for early payments (lower rates payoff old loans). Commercial lending & Real Estate in negative territory as companies will downsize their offices with more people working out of their homes. The office buildings will probably be converted to residential increasing supply and putting further pressure on residential property values. Other than tech I would stay away from stocks until the next big dip which is coming as the company's earnings come out later this year. Cash is king.
 
The market doesn't look promising and is already too expensive. Sure there will be some winning stocks (like the FANGs) but those who sell on these mini rallies will win in the long term. I doubt Moderna's announcement has any merit. Speaking from my own industry: Most banks are up around 10% today even though margins are going towards zero. Loans in forbearance are at all time high and loan servicers are losing money for early payments (lower rates payoff old loans). Commercial lending & Real Estate in negative territory as companies will downsize their offices with more people working out of their homes. The office buildings will probably be converted to residential increasing supply and putting further pressure on residential property values. Other than tech I would stay away from stocks until the next big dip which is coming as the company's earnings come out later this year. Cash is king.
Yes, but you're discounting the ginormous liquidity inserted into the market in a matter of weeks. Totally unprecedented and it would be extremely inflationary under normal circumstances. Since these are not normal times, the inflationary aspect will only surface in asset values (stocks and real estate for the most part). Real Estate is poised to lag behind for a while, but stocks have no reason to. This is a repeat of 2008 only on a bigger scale. Not the same problem, but pretty much the same solution, only bigger.

The reason the market didn't plunge as much as expected is because it was already very strong and awash with liquidity. $5+ trillion dollars is a super boost, but when all central banks and Powell himself is claiming more is coming then there's no reason to call today's stock prices "expensive". Nothing is expensive if the money supply is virtually endless.

I know this will definitely come down crashing like a house of cards at some point in the future, but until then, stay invested I would say.
 
Likes: Zob Ahan
Feb 4, 2005
16,633
1,245
Yes, but you're discounting the ginormous liquidity inserted into the market in a matter of weeks. Totally unprecedented and it would be extremely inflationary under normal circumstances. Since these are not normal times, the inflationary aspect will only surface in asset values (stocks and real estate for the most part). Real Estate is poised to lag behind for a while, but stocks have no reason to. This is a repeat of 2008 only on a bigger scale. Not the same problem, but pretty much the same solution, only bigger.

The reason the market didn't plunge as much as expected is because it was already very strong and awash with liquidity. $5+ trillion dollars is a super boost, but when all central banks and Powell himself is claiming more is coming then there's no reason to call today's stock prices "expensive". Nothing is expensive if the money supply is virtually endless.

I know this will definitely come down crashing like a house of cards at some point in the future, but until then, stay invested I would say.
I am no expert but if history repeats itself the crashing will be here sooner than you think. This has bull trap written all over it. The market is only down about 10% since the February high if it goes up another 10-11% it will reach the peak. If that happens it would be the first time in history that we reach a peak during a recession. Add the China revenge factor to the equation and it will get ugly. The only rescue will be a vaccine really soon. It would have to be soon enough to reverse what is happening.
 
Oct 18, 2002
16,337
195
BT does have a point.
there is really no point to fighting the FED.

the fed is buying all kinds of junk bonds. they might has well just start buying equities.

Market should have been done by 50% if it was not for FED rescue.
 
Feb 4, 2005
16,633
1,245
The Moderna news was kind of fishy:

Vaccine experts say Moderna didn’t produce data critical to assessing Covid-19 vaccine


Heavy hearts soared Monday with news that Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine candidate — the frontrunner in the American market — seemed to be generating an immune response in Phase 1 trial subjects. The company’s stock valuation also surged, hitting $29 billion, an astonishing feat for a company that currently sells zero products.

But was there good reason for so much enthusiasm? Several vaccine experts asked by STAT concluded that, based on the information made available by the Cambridge, Mass.-based company, there’s really no way to know how impressive — or not — the vaccine may be.

While Moderna blitzed the media, it revealed very little information — and most of what it did disclose were words, not data. That’s important: If you ask scientists to read a journal article, they will scour data tables, not corporate statements. With science, numbers speak much louder than words.

Related:
Moderna carries a big-boy market valuation now, so it shouldn’t act like a biotech penny stock
Even the figures the company did release don’t mean much on their own, because critical information — effectively the key to interpreting them — was withheld.

Experts suggest we ought to take the early readout with a big grain of salt. Here are a few reasons why.

The silence of the NIAID
The National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases has partnered with Moderna on this vaccine. Scientists at NIAID made the vaccine’s construct, or prototype, and the agency is running the Phase 1 trial. This week’s Moderna readout came from the earliest of data from the NIAID-led Phase 1.

NIAID doesn’t hide its light under a bushel. The institute generally trumpets its findings, often offering director Anthony Fauci — who, fair enough, is pretty busy these days — or other senior personnel for interviews.

But NIAID did not put out a press release Monday and declined to provide comment on Moderna’s announcement.

The n = 8 thing
The company’s statement led with the fact that all 45 subjects (in this analysis) who received doses of 25 micrograms (two doses each), 100 micrograms (two doses each) or a 250 micrograms (one dose) developed binding antibodies.

Later, the statement indicated that eight volunteers — four each from the 25-microgram and 100-microgram arms — developed neutralizing antibodies. Of the two types, these are the ones you’d really want to see.

We don’t know results from the other 37 trial participants. This doesn’t mean that they didn’t develop neutralizing antibodies. Testing for neutralizing antibodies is more time-consuming than other antibody tests and must be done in a biosecurity level 3 laboratory. Moderna disclosed the findings from eight subjects because that’s all it had at that point. Still, it’s a reason for caution.

Separately, while the Phase 1 trial included healthy volunteers ages 18 to 55 years, the exact ages of these eight people are unknown. If, by chance, they mostly clustered around the younger end of the age spectrum, you might expect a better response to the vaccine than if they were mostly from the senior end of it. And given who is at highest risk from the SARS-2 coronavirus, protecting older adults is what Covid-19 vaccines need to do.

There’s no way to know how durable the response will be
The report of neutralizing antibodies in subjects who were vaccinated comes from blood drawn two weeks after they received their second dose of vaccine.

Two weeks.

“That’s very early. We don’t know if those antibodies are durable,” said Anna Durbin, a vaccine researcher at Johns Hopkins University.

There’s no real way to contextualize the findings

Moderna stated that the antibody levels seen were on a par with — or greater than, in the case of the 100-microgram dose — those seen in people who have recovered from Covid-19 infection.

But studies have shown antibody levels among people who have recovered from the illness vary enormously; the range that may be influenced by the severity of a person’s disease. John “Jack” Rose, a vaccine researcher from Yale University, pointed STAT to a study from China that showed that, among 175 recovered Covid-19 patients studied, 10 had no detectable neutralizing antibodies. Recovered patients at the other end of the spectrum had really high antibody levels.

So though the company said the antibody levels induced by vaccine were as good as those generated by infection, there’s no real way to know what that comparison means.

STAT asked Moderna for information on the antibody levels it used as a comparator. The response: That will be disclosed in an eventual journal article from NIAID, which is part of the National Institutes of Health.

“The convalescent sera levels are not being detailed in our data readout, but would be expected in a downstream full data exposition with NIH and its academic collaborators,” Colleen Hussey, the company’s senior manager for corporate communications, said in an email.

Durbin was struck by the wording of the company’s statement, pointing to this sentence: “The levels of neutralizing antibodies at day 43 were at or above levels generally seen in convalescent sera.”

“I thought: Generally? What does that mean?” Durbin said. Her question, for the time being, can’t be answered.

Rose said the company should disclose the information. “When a company like Moderna with such incredibly vast resources says they have generated SARS-2 neutralizing antibodies in a human trial, I would really like to see numbers from whatever assay they are using,” he said.

Moderna’s approach to disclosure
The company has not yet brought a vaccine to market, but it has a variety of vaccines for infectious diseases in its pipeline. It doesn’t publish on its work in scientific journals. What is known has been disclosed through press releases. That’s not enough to generate confidence within the scientific community.

“My guess is that their numbers are marginal or they would say more,” Rose said about the company’s SARS-2 vaccine, echoing a suspicion that others have about some of the company’s other work.

“I do think it’s a bit of a concern that they haven’t published the results of any of their ongoing trials that they mention in their press release. They have not published any of that,” Durbin noted.

Still, she characterized herself as “cautiously optimistic” based on what the company has said so far.

“I would like to see the data to make my own interpretation of the data. But I think it is at least encouraging that we’ve seen immune responses with this RNA vaccine that we haven’t seen with previous RNA vaccines for other pathogens. Whether it’s going to be enough, we don’t know,” Durbin said.

Moderna has been more forthcoming with data on at least one of its other vaccine candidates. In a statement issued in January about a Phase 1 trial for its cytomegalovirus (CMV) vaccine, it quantified how far over baseline measures antibody levels rose in vaccines.